Donald_J._Trump_at_Marriott_Marquis_NYC_September_7th_2016_04 (1)

Bombshell: Trump Team Surveilled During Obama Admin, Says House Intel Chair

It turns out that President Trump’s transition team may have been surveilled after all.

Politico reports, “Members of the Donald Trump transition team, possibly including Trump himself, were under surveillance during the Obama administration following November’s election, House Intelligence Chairman Devin Nunes told reporters Wednesday.”

Rep. Nunes, R-Calif., said that “sources” informed him of possible surveillance that appears to have been legal and unrelated to the Trump-Russia collusion theories.

Politico’s Eric Geller provided more details from the Nunes press conference.

The mainstream media initially dismissed their own reporting of Obama administration surveillance, and its “police-state tactics.”

Will we see an apology from the media elites for mockingly dismissing the questions Mark Levin has raised for weeks, as mere “conspiracy theories”? (For more from the author of “Bombshell: Trump Team Surveilled During Obama Admin, Says House Intel Chair” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


The U.S. And U.K. Just Banned Something Everyone Uses on Certain Flights

Senior administration officials confirmed Tuesday that the U.S. will be implementing carry-on restrictions banning electronic devices larger than a smartphone from flights arriving in the United States from selected airlines in the Middle East and Northern Africa. The new TSA “emergency amendment” requires passengers to put their laptops, tablets, game consoles, etc., in with their checked baggage, whether they intended to check any luggage or not.

The new procedure affects the following airports: Jordan’s Queen Alia International; Egypt’s Cairo International; Kuwait International; Qatar’s Doha International; Turkey’s Istanbul Ataturk; Saudi Arabia’s King Abdulaziz International; Saudi Arabia’s King Khalid International; Morocco’s Mohammed V Airport; Dubai International; and Abu Dabi International.

Airlines affected by the ban are as follows: Turkish Airlines; Royal Jordanian; EgyptAir; Saudia; Qatar Airways; Kuwait Airways; Royal Air Maroc; Emirates; and Ethiad Airways. The ban does not apply to airline employees or flights into any of the listed airports.

DHS officials are calling it a safety precaution, citing past attacks in Egypt, Turkey, Belgium, and Somalia — none of which involved explosives or weapons being smuggled onboard in electronic devices. They also dismissed questions regarding whether or not the sudden restrictions were in response to any credible threat, how long the “emergency amendment” will be enforced, or the difference between a device being held in the cargo hold or held in the cabin of the same plane.

Less than 24 hours later, the U.K. followed suit, announcing a carry-on electronics ban “on direct flights to the UK from Turkey, Lebanon, Jordan, Egypt, Tunisia and Saudi Arabia.” The airlines affected by the ban are British Airways; EasyJet;; Monarch; Thomas Cook; Thompson; Turkish Airlines; Pegasus Airways; Atlas-Global Airlines; Middle East Airlines; Egyptair; Royal Jordanian; Tunis Air; and Saudia.

The spokesman for the prime minister declined to comment on what prompted the new procedures. (For more from the author of “The U.S. And U.K. Just Banned Something Everyone Uses on Certain Flights” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


As the Media Focuses on Russia, Government’s Own Data Shows US Interfered in 81 Elections

Ask an average American who makes a habit of following government-mouthpiece corporate media about interference in national elections and you’ll likely elicit a nebulous response concerning Russian hackers and a plan to install Donald Trump in the White House — but you probably won’t hear a single syllable pertaining to United States government’s actual attempts to do the same.

On Monday, FBI Director James Comey confirmed for the first time publicly that the bureau is officially investigating hotly contentious allegations of Russian meddling in the U.S. election — but, even if proven true, such geopolitical escapades better characterize the routine behavior of accuser than of accused.

“The F.B.I., as part of our counterintelligence effort, is investigating the Russian government’s efforts to interfere in the 2016 president election,” the director announced, adding the bureau would conduct a probe to discern whether Trump’s associates had contact with Russian officials.

Despite that the U.S. has hypocritically exerted influence over foreign elections in all corners of the globe — in fact, it has arrogantly done so a whopping 81 times between 1946 and 2000, alone — with just one-third of those operations undertaken overtly.

For months, mainstream media parroted murky accusations hurled by politicians — keen to point a finger of blame for the apparently stultifying victory of a former reality television host on someone — that The Russians had somehow surreptitiously undermined the election-centric foundation of American Democracy.

While that has yet to prove true, this new Red Scare constitutes a duplicitous attempt by the pot to call the kettle … an election meddler.

Researcher Dov Levin of Carnegie Mellon University’s Institute for Politics and Strategy — an expert on the topic at hand — discussed the lengthy but incomplete list of times the U.S. government has interfered in other nations’ elections with NPR’s Ari Shapiro.

Asked for examples where this tampering tangibly altered results, Levin stated,

One example of that was our intervention in Serbia, Yugoslavia in the 2000 election there. Slobodan Milosevic was running for re-election, and we didn’t want him to stay in power there due to his tendency, you know, to disrupt the Balkans and his human rights violations.

So we intervened in various ways for the opposition candidate, Vojislav Kostunica. And we gave funding to the opposition, and we gave them training and campaigning aide. And according to my estimate, that assistance was crucial in enabling the opposition to win.

Levin reiterated the more blatant methods with which the U.S. asserts dominance — through the overt coups or all-out regime changes branding the nation a notorious interventionist — are not among the list of the 80-plus attempts to manipulate the electoral outcome.

As for the issue of pot versus kettle, Levin explained that — although Russia and other powerful nations indisputably employ similar tactics — the United States has been quite prodigious in its effort.

Well, for my dataset, the United States is the most common user of this technique. Russia or the Soviet Union since 1945 has used it half as much. My estimate has been 36 cases between 1946 to 2000. We know also that the Chinese have used this technique and the Venezuelans when the late Hugo Chavez was still in power in Venezuela and other countries.

As sanctimoniously as U.S. politicians cry foul about The Russians, it would behoove the new McCarthyites to reflect on the nation’s sticky imperialist fingerprints around the globe — like that time in 1996, when the United States undertook an extensive, secret operation to ensure the presidency of Boris Yeltsin.

That is, of course, former President Boris Yeltsin — of the Russian Federation. (For more from the author of “As the Media Focuses on Russia, Government’s Own Data Shows US Interfered in 81 Elections” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Why the CIA, the MSM, and Other Globalists Are Committed to All out War Against Trump

In a recent article, I described how Trump is up against both the media and the CIA. The CIA started infiltrating media with Operation Mockingbird, soon after Harry Truman created the Agency in 1947— and the infiltration has continued to this day.

The crossover point occurred about five minutes after President Truman launched the Agency. The CIA’s mandate was: collect information about what was going on around the world, so it could advise the president.

But CIA directors, starting especially with Allen Dulles, had a different vision.

Why just collect information?

Since the Agency’s job was digging up secrets, why not invent secrets?

Why not invent entire patterns and platforms of information to support an agenda of US global domination?

Why not invent endless enemies who needed to be conquered?

After all, domination was the objective of the super powerful Council on Foreign Relations, coming out of World War 2. The CFR stood outside and above the government in the shadows. It was a Rockefeller operation. The Rockefeller family was uncrowned royalty. Shouldn’t the CIA align itself with that REAL power?

It took some years for the CIA to fully realize the Rockefeller agenda was global government—not US hegemony. So the CIA adjusted its sights and its motives and its invention of data, to fit the Globalist picture.

Flash forward. Trump, suddenly signaling NATIONALISM NOT GLOBALISM, in 2016, was a distinct threat. That signal could wake up millions of people who hadn’t thought about either Nationalism or Globalism.

The point wasn’t about whether Trump meant what he advocated. The point was: what effect would he have on the American people and other nations around the world, who could revert to Nationalism?

The CIA threw together a bunch of invented data about Russia influencing the election for Trump. Thoroughly in bed with the Washington Post and the NY Times, the Agency put out the word, and within a day the media echo chamber was alive with “Russia hacked the election.”

It was a typical discredit and destroy op. Delegitimize the Trump presidency. Focus on the man, not the message. Wipe out the Nationalism message by defaming the messenger.

“The cat is out of the bag. Now we have to put it back in the bag.”

Not so easy, particularly with thousands of online independent media outlets humming at full force.

Those who exclusively focus on whether Trump is a true Nationalist, a secret Globalist, or a neocon, are missing a key point. Trump woke up millions of people with his Nationalist messages. Those people are now moving outside the CIA-media nexus. They are springing from that trap.

A new sensation and feeling and thought-process is loose in the world. It was there before Trump, but he pumped it up to a full roar.

The CIA invents, every day, a world in which Globalism must win and should win. It turns its out propaganda 24/7. It thus saturates media.

It is Orwell’s Ministry of Truth.

JFK and RFK were obstacles to the forward motion of the CIA? Get them out of the way.

Trump is an impediment? At the very least, destroy his persona.

The CIA has no particular interest in who Trump “really is.” They only care about what effect he could have on the population.

After years of compliance from Obama, George W Bush, Bill Clinton, and Bush the Elder (a former CIA director), the Agency suddenly saw this swaggering cowboy appear strolling over the horizon. The Donald.

What did he think he was doing? Where did he get this Nationalism? What was going on?

Trump started right in, attacking the media. Did he know something he wasn’t supposed to know? Did he know the media were a branch of the CIA propaganda tree?

Did he know the CIA considered itself the true president of the United States?

Did he know the CIA had been carrying out a monster covert op for 70 years, pretending to be the eyes and ears for the president—but actually consolidating its stranglehold on the Oval Office and the Congress?

Was it possible Trump knew that the CIA, while claiming to forward US interests around the world, was, behind that pose, actually positioning Globalism as the ultimate international victor?

Was Trump aware that all traces of Nationalism, across the planet, were being censored and erased by major media?

Could he see that?

In his cavalier, off-the-cuff, impulsive, egoistic, boastful way, was he waking up a sleeping giant?

Was there a deep tidal wave, gathering force far out in the ocean, a wave of Nationalism, percolating, as if waiting for a signal to proceed toward many shores?

Had decades of routine lying and data-invention at the CIA made the smartest minds there complacent and inattentive?

Was the Agency about to receive a titanic blindsiding blow?

The CIA sent out the word to its many minions in the press, government, think tanks, foundations, and Globalist organizations: say anything and do anything to discredit this crazy president NOW. Don’t wait. It doesn’t matter what you accuse him of. Throw everything you’ve got at him and hope enough of it sticks. If saying he comes from Mars works, say he comes from Mars.

The CIA was caught asleep at the wheel. It had no coordinated plan to take down the fast-talking cowboy in the White House. It had to be all hands on deck and HIT IT HARD RIGHT AWAY.

“If we can take down Trump, we can take down Nationalism and restore Globalism to its rightful place.”


Is that true?

Or are thousands more people all over the world waking up every day, realizing that one global management system for humanity is the covert agenda—and that this plan is about nothing less than complete top-down control, and the decimation of life lived in freedom?

Does Nationalism, as a massive decentralization away from Globalism, come circling back to THE INDIVIDUAL, and his utter refusal to be enslaved?

Is that possible?

Because I’m here to tell you, if it is possible, then the fact of Donald Trump, in the fullness of time, doesn’t matter. What matters is the personal truth that every person knows: HIS OWN LIBERTY.

And trying to dislodge and erase THAT resistance and that hunger for freedom is more than the CIA and all its horses and all its men can achieve.

We are not Humpty-Dumpty.

They are.

And fallen, they won’t be able to put themselves back together again.

Certainly, they’ll get no help from us. (For more from the author of “Why the CIA, the MSM, and Other Globalists Are Committed to All out War Against Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Abortion Activists Launch Email Campaign to Loosen Regulations in Alaska

Abortion rights backer ACLU of Alaska is praising a proposed change to Alaska law that would loosen abortion regulations across the state and allow for more widespread late term abortion.

In a March 21 email, the group’s Executive Director Joshua Decker said proposed changes by the Alaska State Medical Board are “an improvement and would make it easier for thousands of Alaskan women to access the reproductive healthcare they need.”

The move to change state regulations comes on the heels of a lawsuit filed in November by the ACLU and Planned Parenthood, Alaska’s largest abortion chain. The lawsuit seeks to force Alaska to repeal certain regulations on second trimester abortions — those done after 13 weeks and six days.

In response, the State Medical Board issued proposed changes in February, which are now undergoing a public comment period that extends until March 24.

With only days left to file comments, the ACLU is pressing abortion supporters in Alaska to influence the State Medical Board by individually emailing a largely pre-written message to the board members.

Each email contains “required” text that states that “proposed changes to the State Medical Board’s current regulations on abortion care are a step in the right direction for Alaska.” It later states: “I appreciate the time and effort that went into updating the regulations because Alaskan women deserve better than the current restrictions placed on their access to a critical healthcare service.”

The proposed changes would eliminate the need for an abortion provider to get a second opinion from another doctor before performing a second trimester abortion. Additionally, abortionists would no longer be required to have access to an operating room equipped for major surgeries. Instead, abortions performed after a baby is viable would need to done in a hospital with neonatal care facilities. Abortionists also would no longer need to make a written record of a woman’s “physical and emotional” health prior to undergoing an abortion.

The Planned Parenthood lawsuit maintains that Alaska law overly burdens women seeking later-term abortions — procedures they claim are safe. Given that Planned Parenthood cannot comply with the current regulations, it is restricted from aborting babies after the second trimester. This leads to women to fly out of state to obtain late term abortions, they claim.

Planned Parenthood currently performs first-trimester surgical and chemical abortions at clinics in Anchorage, Fairbanks, Juneau and Soldotna. Together these clinics account for more than 90 percent of the roughly 1,300 abortions performed annually in Alaska.

Despite Planned Parenthood’s claim that second trimester abortions are “performed safely in outpatient facilities,” numerous studies conclude that second trimester abortions account for a disproportionate amount of abortion-related morbidity and mortality and carry risks of infection, bleeding and damage to organs.

Abortions performed after 20 weeks, when not done by inducing premature labor, are most commonly performed by dilation and evacuation. These techniques involve crushing, dismemberment and removing a baby’s body from a woman’s uterus, even after the baby could potentially survive outside the mother. In some cases, late-term abortion involves a lethal injection into the unborn baby’s heart to ensure that the child is not pulled out alive or with the ability to survive.

The State Medical Board will take comments on its proposed changes until March 24. After the public comment period ends, the Board will either adopt the proposed regulation changes without further notice, or decide to take no action. The language of the final regulation may be different from that of the proposed regulation.

The State Medical Board consists of five physicians, one physician assistant, and two public members. Board members are appointed by the governor and confirmed by the Legislature.

The board adopts regulations to carry out the laws governing the practice of medicine in Alaska.

Comments on the proposed regulations can be submitted in writing to Jun Maiquis, Regulations Specialist, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing, P.O. Box 110806, Juneau, AK 99811-0806. Additionally, the board will accept comments by facsimile at (907) 465-2974 and by email at [email protected] Comments may also be submitted through the Alaska Online Public Notice System. Comments must be received not later than 5 p.m. on March 24.

In addition to submitting public comments, Alaskans may send in written questions about the proposals to Jun Maiquis, Regulations Specialist, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing, P.O. Box 110806, Juneau, AK 99811-0806 or email [email protected] Questions must be received at least 10 days before the end of the public comment period. The board will aggregate its response to similar questions and make the questions and responses available online.

Comments on the proposed regulations can be submitted in writing to Jun Maiquis, Regulations Specialist, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing, P.O. Box 110806, Juneau, AK 99811-0806. Additionally, the board will accept comments by facsimile at (907) 465-2974 and by email at [email protected]
Comments may also be submitted through the Alaska Online Public Notice System. Comments must be received not later than 5 p.m. on March 24.In addition to submitting public comments, Alaskans may send in written questions about the proposals to Jun Maiquis, Regulations Specialist, Division of Corporations, Business and Professional Licensing, P.O. Box 110806, Juneau, AK 99811-0806 or email [email protected] Questions must be received at least 10 days before the end of the public comment period. The board will aggregate its response to similar questions and make the questions and responses available online. (For more from the author of “Abortion Activists Launch Email Campaign to Loosen Regulations in Alaska” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Secret Service Removes Agent Who Didn’t Want to Do THIS for Trump

The Secret Service will permanently remove a top special agent from her position after an investigation into her Facebook comments that she would rather not defend President Trump or take “a bullet” for him, but some agents are concerned she will simply be transferred to another government job.

About two weeks ago, the Secret Service placed the agent’s prior post — the special agent in charge of the Denver District, the top job in that office — on a list of agency openings, according to two Secret Service sources.

Kerry O’Grady, the agent in question, is on administrative leave amid an internal Secret Service investigation into her Facebook comments about Trump.

Current and former Secret Service agents and officers are worried that top officials at the agency are working to shield O’Grady from being fired.

They are worried that she will be transferred to another division of the Homeland Security Department and allowed to serve out her time until she can retire with a pension as the agency has done with other officials in the public crosshairs. (For more from the author of “Secret Service Removes Agent Who Didn’t Want to Do Something Major for Trump” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Drinking Tea Daily Can Slash Dementia Risk

A cup of tea a day can keep dementia away, according to a study from the National University of Singapore, which found that tea can slash the risk of dementia in people aged 55 and older.

Drinking tea cuts the risk of cognitive impairment in older people in half, but the news is even better for those who are genetically at risk of Alzheimer’s. In people who carry the APOE e4 gene, tea reduces the risk by as much as 86 percent.

The researchers also discovered that the ability of tea to protect the brain isn’t limited to a particular type of tea, as long as the tea is brewed from tea leaves, such as green, black or oolong tea . . .

Other studies have found that tea protects the brain. In Alzheimer’s patients, amyloid protein in the brain forms into clumps and fastens onto nerves in brain cells, causing them to die. Scientists at Britain’s University of Leeds found that treating the proteins with extracts of green tea and resveratrol disrupted the ability of amyloid to clump. (Read more from “Drinking Tea Daily Can Slash Dementia Risk” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Chicago Teen Apparently Gang-Raped on Facebook Live

A 15-year-old Chicago girl was apparently sexually assaulted by five or six men or boys on Facebook Live, and none of the roughly 40 people who watched the live video reported the attack to police, authorities said.

The video marks the second time in recent months that the Chicago Police Department has investigated an apparent attack that was streamed live on Facebook. In January, four people were arrested after a cellphone footage showed them allegedly taunting and beating a mentally disabled man.

Police only learned of the latest alleged attack when the girl’s mother approached the head of the police department, Superintendent Eddie Johnson, Monday afternoon as he was leaving a department station in the Lawndale neighborhood on the city’s West Side, department spokesman Anthony Guglielmi said Tuesday. She told him her daughter had been missing since Sunday and showed him screen grab photos of the alleged assault. (Read more from “Chicago Teen Apparently Gang-Raped on Facebook Live” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.


Shoot for Mars! Trump Signs Cruz-Rubio $19.5 Billion NASA Bill

President Trump signed a bipartisan bill Tuesday that funds NASA programs and maps out a plan to send a manned mission to Mars.

The NASA Transition Authorization Act, which was co-authored by Sen. Ted Cruz, R-Texas, and Sen. Marco Rubio, R-Fla., distributes $19.5 billion for the space agency’s 2018 fiscal year (beginning Oct. 1). The bill also calls for NASA to draft a plan for a manned mission to Mars in the 2030s. The bill closely aligns with Trump’s $19.1 billion budget proposal for the agency.

Money will be delegated for deep space exploration, refining the International Space Station, commercial partnerships, and planning for the mission to Mars. The bill also “authorizes a space technology program” the White House said in a statement.

“It is the first time in seven years we’ve had a NASA authorization bill,” Sen. Cruz said, joking with President Trump that he could now “send Congress to space.”

“We could. What a great idea that could be,” Trump responded.

“This means a great deal for the nation’s space exploration, and it means a great deal for the state of Texas, and it continues America’s leadership in space,” Cruz added.

The president said NASA would continue to focus on space exploration while also working on transitioning more space activities to private companies.

“It’s been a long time since a bill like this has been signed, reaffirming our national commitment to the core mission of NASA, human space exploration, space science and technology,” the president said. “With this legislation, we support NASA’s scientists, engineers and astronauts and their pursuit of discovery.”

The bill appears to move the space agency back to its core duties. Former President Obama famously turned NASA into an agency that prioritized climate change, along with reaching out to the Islamic world. (For more from the author of “Shoot for Mars! Trump Signs Cruz-Rubio $19.5 Billion NASA Bill” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.

6262125702_a086dd49f1_b (1)

How Democrats Stole the Judicial Confirmation Process

The “stolen seat”????

As in the Republican Senate “stole” a seat on the Supreme Court because it refused to confirm President Obama’s election year nomination of Merrick Garland? Something none other than then-Senator Joe Biden vowed when he thought then President George H.W. Bush might get a court nomination in the election year of 1992.

How about this? How about the Democrats stole — make that deliberately destroyed — the U.S. Senate’s judicial confirmation process — something they started years ago.

With the nomination and now ongoing Senate confirmation hearings of Trump Supreme Court nominee Neil Gorsuch, conservatives are well within their rights to roll their eyes at the disingenuous lies that are coming Judge Gorsuch’s way. Whether the topic is Obamacare, birth control, the role of federal agencies, or all manner of rights ranging alphabetically from abortion to workers, the liberal attack machine is at work. And alas, there is sadly not a thing new about this.

As it happens, I had the opportunity to work on the confirmations of five Reagan Supreme Court nominations as a member of the White House Office of Political Affairs. One of those nominees was Judge Robert Bork — the nomination where the verb “to bork” emerged. Later, in the Bush 43 era, as a private citizen, I was heavily involved in President Bush’s nomination of a best friend from college for a seat on the Third Circuit Court of Appeals. I went into this 2001-2002 episode with eyes open and taking notes, and the experience — which ended with the successful confirmation of Judge D.Brooks Smith — became a small book: “The Borking Rebellion: The Never-Before-Told Story of How a Group of Pennsylvania Women Attorneys took on the Entire U. S. Senate Judiciary Committee–And Won”

The bottom line? There is no limit — none — to what liberals will do to defeat a GOP president’s judicial nominations. And what once was limited to Supreme Court nominees has now long-since spread to confirmation fights for the lower courts. Note well that in his recent confirmation battle to become attorney general, former-Senator Jeff Session’s history as a defeated — make that borked — Reagan judicial nominee for a lower court was dredged up all over again.

The grim fact of what has become routine at these events is that they have become the very antithesis of what they were originally conceived to be: a serious forum to discuss the legal issues of the day.

Instead they have become political snake pits, with one far-left wing special interest after another lined up to assail any and everything about a GOP president’s nominee of the moment. How does this work? Let me provide but one example from the confirmation of Judge Smith.

I write to request your opinion concerning certain ethical questions that have arisen with the nomination of Judge D. Brooks Smith in the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit.

So began a 2002 letter from then Wisconsin Senator and liberal Democrat Russell Feingold to NYU Law School Vice Dean Stephen Gillers. On the surface, the letter seems routine to the point of innocuous. A letter from a sitting U.S. senator on the Senate Judiciary Committee to a then-vice dean of a prominent American law school on the subject of judicial ethics. It sounds and appears as something totally normal, well within the bounds of senatorial inquiry when considering a judicial nomination.

Not so fast.

After working on those five Supreme Court nominations I mentioned above, I had learned something about how liberals played the game. The obvious question to me was: Who is Stephen Gillers — really? The answer did not require much digging, although characteristically it was the kind of digging the liberal media of the day never got around to doing when they would quote Gillers on the subject of judicial ethics. Not in the habit of quoting myself, let me break that rule here to quote from “The Borking Rebellion.” For the sake of reference, note that the group referred to here — the Community Rights Counsel — was a far-left, hyper-partisan special interest group whose mission had become, among other things, attacking GOP judicial nominees. Note as well that Professor Gillers was cited repeatedly in the liberal media as simply an ethics expert. I wrote this:

‘Nothing for Free’ was the title of a report issued by the Community Rights Counsel in July of 2000. A report attacking judicial seminars…I found this reference in its very first sentence:

“The authors are indebted to…Steven Gillers (sic)…(who) reviewed earlier drafts and provided unique and unfailingly helpful advice on improving the final product.”

Wow. The article in The Washington Post on Brooks Smith and John Gardner Black (a central figure in a fraud case heard by Smith) had been produced by research from Kendall. In writing the story that challenged Brooks’ ethics, Post reporter Ed Walsh then went to Stephen Gillers, presenting him in the story simply as a ‘professor of legal ethics at New York University Law School.’ Gillers was then quoted in the story casting doubt on Brooks (‘a serious argument for recusal is present…Judge Smith should have revealed the information’etc.)

In other words, the Post used Kendall’s CRC research to criticize Brooks, then used Kendall’s CRC consultant Gillers to verify that an ethics breach is potentially ‘present.’ Gillers was never identified as a CRC consultant, presented instead as a disinterested third party expert on legal ethics.

This was but one small piece of the Smith nomination, but standard procedure when it came to dealing with liberals on Supreme Court nominations. Not to wax Trumpian, but the confirmation system had been rigged. In that case, a sitting Democratic senator on the Judiciary Committee wrote a letter to a supposed legal ethicist whom he knew to be an ideological ally and on whom he could count for an opinion to the senator’s liking. Likewise the Post, either not bothering to check the “ethics expert” for any ties that would rule him out as an uninterested observer — or knowing full well and deliberately omitting the fact — blithely used him as a source to condemn the nominee. The paper, of course, never mentioned the “ethics expert” as someone who was in fact tied to the interest group that was attacking the nominee.

This is the game that the confirmation process has become. And that cited incident in the Smith case doesn’t even touch the surface of the well of deceit and dirty tricks used against one nominee for an appeals court opening.

Why does this mean anything now? Because as the Gorsuch nomination is played out it appears more than likely that at this exact moment in political time the nominee will be confirmed. A superb, well-thought of nominee has been nominated by a GOP president with a GOP Senate at hand to get him confirmed. But make no mistake. The Gorsuch nomination is merely a moment where the liberal interest groups who have so corrupted this process — stolen it — are shaking off the doldrums resulting in a breather from nomination fights. But the moment the news hits that the next justice has decided to hang up his or her judicial robe — or as lower court nominations proceed with a roster of conservatives — you can bet that the forces who have spent years — say again years — corrupting this process will be out in force.

The question then will be a simple one. Are conservatives ready? Are they, to use a baseball metaphor, finished with the spring training of the Gorsuch nomination and ready for World Series judicial confirmation hard ball?

Time will tell. But, to mix metaphors, forewarned is forearmed. (For more from the author of “How Democrats Stole the Judicial Confirmation Process” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE.